Excavation to create a lower ground floor to the rear; part single and two storey rear extension; single storey rear extension; and alteration/extension of existing flat roofed rear outrigger to form a pitched roof; front porch extension and installation of window to front gable and replacement detached double garage in rear garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 November 2017 by S Harley BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI ARICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 14th November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/D/17/3185439 48 Heathfield Road Acton W3 8EJ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs D Barter against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Ealing.  The application Ref 170353HH, dated 25 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 7 July 2017.  The development proposed is excavation to create a lower ground floor to the rear; part single and two storey rear extension; single storey rear extension; and alteration/extension of existing flat roofed rear outrigger to form a pitched roof; front porch extension and installation of window to front gable and replacement detached double garage in rear garden. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for excavation to create a lower ground floor to the rear; part single and two storey rear extension; single storey rear extension; and alteration/extension of existing flat roofed rear outrigger to form a pitched roof; front porch extension and installation of window to front gable at 48 Heathfield Road Acton W3 8EJ in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 170353HH, dated 25 January 2017, and the conditions set out in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matter 2. The development was described as “proposed porch, two storey rear extension part single storey” on the planning application form. However this was altered during the course of the application to that set out in the banner heading above. The Council decided the application on this basis. The evidence submitted with the appeal did not include details of the replacement garage and the appellants have confirmed that it does not form part of the appeal proposal. I have considered the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue for the purpose of this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host and nearby properties and the Mill Hill Park Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The appeal site lies within the Mill Hill Park Conservation Area (the CA) and in a designated Archaeological Interest Area. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/17/3185439 2 Conservation Areas) Act, 1990, requires that special attention is paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Policy 7C of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan Document 2013 (the DMDPD); Policies 1.1(h) and 1.2(g) of the Development (Core) Strategy 2012 (the CS); and Policy 7.8 of the London Plan 2016 (the LP) require developments to complement the local area and not to undermine the significance of the CA. 5. The CA is strongly defined by the Mill Hill Park Estate founded by William Willett in 1877. This is an enclave contained to the south by its boundary with South Acton Estate and to the north by its boundary with Avenue Road. The appeal site lies within Sub Area 2, the Mill Hill Park Estate (the Willetts’ Estate), which comprises the three streets of Heathfield Road, Avenue Gardens and Avenue Crescent. There are decorative gateposts at its northern limits. Although many of the residential properties are from Victorian times there is a variety of design, styles and details which gives a diverse architectural appearance. 6. Properties within the Willetts’ Estate are more generously proportioned than those along Mill Hill Road and Avenue Road; are arranged with wider spaces amongst them; and sit in wider plots of land with considerable front and back gardens. An important aspect of the original design of the houses was the abundance of window light: "In all houses see that the basement especially is well lighted, and that all basement and staircase windows are kept up as high as they possibly can be.”1 Trees and hedges around properties are an important part of the suburban and leafy character of the CA. 7. Planning permission has already been granted at No 48 for two storey side/rear extension; single storey rear extension; provision of pitched roof to existing rear outrigger (including conversion of existing roof space to habitable use) including window to front gable; front porch and detached double garage Ref 162974HH. This is a material consideration of considerable weight. 8. The existing house and terrace behind are at a significantly higher level than the remainder of the rear garden. The works now proposed include those with planning permission and additional works of excavating beneath parts of the existing building/permitted extensions and removal of the terrace to provide a room at lower ground floor level. There would be no alterations to the front elevation that do not already have permission. 9. The proposal would result in a greater extent of apparent brick work to the side elevations. However, due to the levels within the site these would not appear overly dominant and would not unduly detract from the appearance of the host or neighbouring properties. The additional patio doors/windows and surrounding brickwork in the rear elevation below the wide approved ground floor windows would, in my view, create a more balanced and better proportioned south elevation. Due to the levels and the position of the proposed lower ground floor there would be no requirement for a light well at the front of the property. 10. Cumulatively the proposed development would be large. However it would not amount to unsightly or over-scale rear, side or roof extensions; would not 1 Mill Hill Park Conservation area Analysis Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/17/3185439 3 erode gaps between buildings and would not affect the urban grain to any significant extent. Accordingly it would not be harmful to the historic environment of the CA in ways envisaged in the CA Management Plan2. On balance I conclude that the proposals taken cumulatively would not have a harmful visual impact on the host property or other adjacent properties. I conclude the development would have a neutral effect on the character or appearance of the CA taken as a whole which amounts to preservation. Accordingly it would not conflict with those aims of Policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the LP; Policies 7.4, 7B and 7C of the DMDPD; Policies 1.1(h) and 1.2(g) of the CS; the Management Plan; or the SPD3 that together seek good design that protects the character and appearance of local areas and the CA. Other Matters 11. The Council raises no objections to the effects of the proposals on trees. On the basis of the information before me I see no reason to come to a different view. It would be for the appellants to ensure that the requirements of the Party Wall Act 1997 are met and to address any implications relating to any underground waterway (tributary of the Bollo Brook). Conclusion 12. For the reasons set out above, and taking into account all other relevant matters raised, I conclude the appeal should be allowed Conditions 13. I have considered the conditions proposed by the Council in the light of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. As well as the time limit for the commencement of development it is necessary to ensure that the scheme is carried out in accordance with the approved plan to provide certainty. In order to preserve the character of the area details of external facing materials are required. As the site is in an Archaeological Interest Area a scheme of investigation, as proposed by Historic England, is necessary to conserve any archaeological interest. SHarley INSPECTOR 2 Mill Hill Park Conservation Area Management Plan 3 Supplementary Planning Document SPD 4 - Residential Extensions Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/17/3185439 4 Schedule of Conditions 48 Heathfield Road Acton W3 8EJ 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: P/15/062/003 Rev G. 3) No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted and any external hard surfacing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) No demolition or development shall take place until a written scheme of investigation (WSI) has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. For land that is included within the WSI, no demolition or development shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed WSI, which shall include the statement of significance and research objectives, and A. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording and the nomination of a competent person(s) or organisation to undertake the agreed works and B. The programme for post-investigation assessment and subsequent analysis, publication, dissemination and deposition of resulting material. This part of the condition shall not be discharged until these elements have been fulfilled in accordance with the programme set out in the WSI. Informative: The written scheme of investigation will need to be prepared and implemented by a suitably qualified professionally accredited archaeological practice in accordance with Historic England's Guidelines for Archaeological Projects in Greater London. This condition is exempt from deemed discharge under schedule 6 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. End of Schedule